ken had total disregard for const and that is good enough for me. i rememeber :rofix and other such hacks, but that was when memory was an issue.
brucee On 12/8/05, Charles Forsyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So it does the optimization possible with const. Not the "interface" > > part, though. If you don't like type decorations, I guess this way's > > better. > > it's not so much type decorations, as those that are not terribly useful or > to some extent misleading. > (mind you, java programs look like christmas trees--holiday trees to those of > you in the US-- > with all their type and status decorations.) > > if you followed the earlier links you'll see one of the classic examples > of it being fairly odd as an interface constraint: > > char* strchr(const char* x, int y) > > but the resulting pointer points into the const string and ok, it doesn't > write to it itself, but it > hands you back a pointer into the same string so you can do it yourself! > that's wierd, especially since it must effectively have cast x to plain char* > internally > so it's not much of a constraint either way. > > i find it's really a device for forcing the adding and removing of const > until a compiler shuts up. this is unusual, because most type clash > diagnostics do mean something; > perhaps not all that much, but something. perhaps i'm lucky, but i have > found bugs through > type clashes (often when checking extern linkages) but i can't remember a > single thing detected by const. > it's one of those things where ``now it's there we might as well try to use > it'' but i'm afraid i'm unconvinced. > >
